On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Spotz, William F wrote:
> I have a user who is reporting tests that are failing on his platform.
> I have not been able to reproduce the error on my system, but working with
> him, we have isolated the problem to unexpected results when
> PyArray_FromObject() is
On 16 February 2012 17:31, Bruce Southey wrote:
> On 02/16/2012 08:06 AM, Scott Sinclair wrote:
>> This is not intended to downplay the concerns raised in this thread,
>> but I can't help myself.
>>
>> I propose the following (tongue-in-cheek) patch against the current
>> numpy master branch.
>>
>
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, February 16, 2012, John Hunter wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Alan G Isaac
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>>> > This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for con
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> The OS X slaves (especially PPC) are very valuable for testing. We have an
> intern who could help keep the build-bots going if you would give her access
> to those machines.
>
> Thanks for being willing to offer them.
No proble
The OS X slaves (especially PPC) are very valuable for testing.We have an
intern who could help keep the build-bots going if you would give her access to
those machines.
Thanks for being willing to offer them.
-Travis
On Feb 16, 2012, at 6:36 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu,
On Thursday, February 16, 2012, John Hunter wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Alan G Isaac
>
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> > This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for consensus.
>>
>> I disagree.
>> Failure to reach consensus does not im
Val,
The problem occurs in function
PyArrayObject* obj_to_array_allow_conversion(PyObject* input,
int typecode,
int* is_new_object)
in numpy.i (which is the numpy SWIG interface file that I authored a
Hi John,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:20 PM, John Hunter wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
>>
>> On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> > This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for consensus.
>>
>> I disagree.
>> Failure to reach consensus does n
Hi Bill,
Looks like you are running a very fresh version of numpy.
Without knowing the build version and what's going on in the extension
module I can't tell you much.
The usual suspects would be:
1) Numpy bug, not too likely.
2) Incorrect use of PyArray_FromObject, you'll need to send more info.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
> On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> > This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for consensus.
>
> I disagree.
> Failure to reach consensus does not imply lack of striving.
>
>
Hey Alan, thanks for your thoughtful and nuan
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
> On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for consensus.
> Striving for consensus does not mean that a minority
> automatically gets veto rights.
'Striving' for consensus does imp
On Thursday, February 16, 2012, Warren Weckesser wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
>> Mark Wiebe and I have been discussing off and on (as well as talking with
>> Charles) a good way forward to balance two competing desires:
>>
>>* addition of new featu
On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for consensus.
I disagree.
Failure to reach consensus does not imply lack of striving.
I see parallels with a recent hiring decision process
I observed. There were fundamentally different
views of h
On 2012-02-16, at 1:28 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
> I think this is a good point, which is why the idea of a long term release is
> appealing. That release should be stodgy and safe, while the ongoing
> development can be much more radical in making changes.
I sort of thought this *was* the st
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> * incorporating a meta-object
> * a few new dtypes (variable-length string, varialbe-length unicode and
> an enum type)
> * simple computed fields for dtypes
>From the sound of that, I'm certainly looking forward to see
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Chris Ball wrote:
>> Buildbot is used by some big projects (e.g. Python, Chromium, and
>> Mozilla), but I'm aware that several projects in the scientific/numeric
>> Python ecosystem use Jenkins (inclu
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> Matthew,
>
> What you should take from my post is that I appreciate your concern for the
> future of the NumPy project, and am grateful that you have an eye to the sort
> of things that can go wrong --- it will help ensure they don
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Chris Ball wrote:
> Buildbot is used by some big projects (e.g. Python, Chromium, and
> Mozilla), but I'm aware that several projects in the scientific/numeric
> Python ecosystem use Jenkins (including Cython, IPython, and SymPy),
> often using a hosted Jenkins so
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Thomas Kluyver wrote:
> On 16 February 2012 23:52, Chris Ball wrote:
>> I'm aware that several projects in the scientific/numeric
>> Python ecosystem use Jenkins (including Cython, IPython, and SymPy),
>> often using a hosted Jenkins solution such as Shining Panda
On 16 February 2012 23:52, Chris Ball wrote:
> I'm aware that several projects in the scientific/numeric
> Python ecosystem use Jenkins (including Cython, IPython, and SymPy),
> often using a hosted Jenkins solution such as Shining Panda. A difficult
> part of running a Buildbot service is finding
We never turn down good help like this. Thank's Chris. I have applied for an
unlimited license for TeamCity for the NumPy project. I have heard good
things about TeamCity, although getting the slaves cranking and staying
cranking is the goal and not the CI architecture.If you know build
Matthew,
What you should take from my post is that I appreciate your concern for the
future of the NumPy project, and am grateful that you have an eye to the sort
of things that can go wrong --- it will help ensure they don't go wrong.
But, I personally don't agree that it is necessary to pu
Ralf Gommers googlemail.com> writes:
...
> While we're at it, our buildbot situation is much worse than our issue
> tracker situation. This also looks good (and free):
> http://www.jetbrains.com/teamcity/
I'd like to help with the NumPy Buildbot situation, and below I propose
a plan for myself t
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:20 PM, wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Warren Weckesser
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Travis Oliphant
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Mark Wiebe and I have been discussing off and on (as well as talking
> with
> >> Charles) a good way forward to
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Warren Weckesser
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Travis Oliphant
> wrote:
>>
>> Mark Wiebe and I have been discussing off and on (as well as talking with
>> Charles) a good way forward to balance two competing desires:
>>
>> * addition of new
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> Mark Wiebe and I have been discussing off and on (as well as talking with
> Charles) a good way forward to balance two competing desires:
>
>* addition of new features that are needed in NumPy
>* improving the code-base gene
Mark Wiebe and I have been discussing off and on (as well as talking with
Charles) a good way forward to balance two competing desires:
* addition of new features that are needed in NumPy
* improving the code-base generally and moving towards a more
maintainable NumPy
I know th
Hi,
Just for my own sake, can I clarify what you are saying here?
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> I'm not a big fan of design-by-committee as I haven't seen it be very
> successful in creating new technologies. It is pretty good at enforcing the
> status-quo. If I
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Thouis (Ray) Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 19:25, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
> > In another thread Jira was proposed as an alternative to Trac. Can you
> point
> > out some of its strengths and weaknesses, and tell us why you decided to
> > move away from it?
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 19:25, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> In another thread Jira was proposed as an alternative to Trac. Can you point
> out some of its strengths and weaknesses, and tell us why you decided to
> move away from it?
The two primary reasons were that our Jira server was behind a
firewall
This has been a clarifying discussion for some people. I'm glad people are
speaking up. I believe in the value of consensus and the value of users
opinions.I want to make sure that people who use NumPy and haven't yet
learned how to contribute, feel like they have a voice. I have alway
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Vaught
> wrote:
> >> > On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Nathan
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Vaught wrote:
>>> > On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Nathaniel Smit
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Francesc Alted
>> wrote:
>>> On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>>>
On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Vaught wrote:
>> > On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> >
>> >> Travis's proposal is that we go from a large num
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 16.02.2012 18:00, Nathaniel Smith kirjoitti:
> [clip]
>> I agree, but the behavior is still surprising -- people reasonably
>> expect something like svd to be deterministic. So there's probably a
>> doc bug for alerting people that t
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Vaught wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> >
> >> Travis's proposal is that we go from a large number of self-selecting
> >> people putting in little bits of time to a
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Vaught wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> >
> >> Travis's proposal is that we go from a large number of self-selecting
> >> people putting in little bits of time to a
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Vaught wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
>> Travis's proposal is that we go from a large number of self-selecting
>> people putting in little bits of time to a small number of designated
>> people putting in lots of time.
>
>
>
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Francesc Alted wrote:
>> On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
But in the very end, when agreement can't
be reached by othe
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
> Why not the NA discussion? Would we really want to have that happen again?
> Note that it still isn't fully resolved and progress still needs to be made
> (I think the last thread did an excellent job of fleshing out the ideas, but
> it beca
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> But surely - surely - the best thing to do here is to formulate
> something that might be acceptable, and for everyone to say what they
> think the problems would be. Do you agree?
Absolutely -- but just like anything else in open source -
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Francesc Alted
> wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> >>> But in the very end, when agreement can't
> >>> be reached b
Hi,
Last week we merged https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/201, which causes
DeprecationWarning's and RuntimeWarning's to be converted to errors if they
occur when running the test suite. The purpose of that is to make sure that
code that still uses other deprecated code (or code that for some re
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Francesc Alted wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>> But in the very end, when agreement can't
>>> be reached by other means, the developers are the one making the calls.
>>> (This is
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:09 AM, wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> >> wrote:
> >> > If non-contributing users came along on
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Thouis (Ray) Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 21:54, Fernando Perez
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> >> The lack of attachments is the main problem with this transition. It's
> >> not so seldom that numerical input dat
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>> > If non-contributing users came along on the Cython list demanding that
>> > we set up a system to se
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 05:00:29PM +, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> I agree, but the behavior is still surprising -- people reasonably
> expect something like svd to be deterministic.
People are wrong then. Trust me, I work enough with ill-conditionned
problems, including SVDs, to know that the alg
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
> > If non-contributing users came along on the Cython list demanding that
> > we set up a system to select non-developers along on a board that would
> > have discussions in
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett
> Personally, I
> would say that making the founder of a company, which is > working to
> make money from Numpy, the only decision maker on numpy -
> is - scary.
not to me:
-- power always goes to those that actually write the code
-- as far as I ca
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 16.02.2012 18:00, Nathaniel Smith kirjoitti:
> [clip]
> > I agree, but the behavior is still surprising -- people reasonably
> > expect something like svd to be deterministic. So there's probably a
> > doc bug for alerting people t
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Inati, Souheil (NIH/NIMH) [E] > As
great and trustworthy as Travis is, there is a very real
> potential for conflict of interest here. He is going to be leading an
> organization to raise and distribute funding and at the same time > leading a
> commercial for pro
Hi,
16.02.2012 18:00, Nathaniel Smith kirjoitti:
[clip]
> I agree, but the behavior is still surprising -- people reasonably
> expect something like svd to be deterministic. So there's probably a
> doc bug for alerting people that their reasonable expectation is, in
> fact, wrong :-).
The problem
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:07 AM, wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:47 AM, wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:30 AM, wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Warren Weckesser
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Pierre Haessig <
> pierre.haes...@crans.org
On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Travis's proposal is that we go from a large number of self-selecting
> people putting in little bits of time to a small number of designated
> people putting in lots of time.
That's not what Travis, or anyone else, proposed.
Travis V.__
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 17:07, wrote:
> cholesky is also deterministic in my runs
We will need to check a variety of builds with different LAPACK
libraries and also different matrix sizes to be sure. Alas!
--
Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless
e
I have a user who is reporting tests that are failing on his platform. I have
not been able to reproduce the error on my system, but working with him, we
have isolated the problem to unexpected results when PyArray_FromObject() is
called. Here is the chain of events:
In python, an integer is
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:47 AM, wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:30 AM, wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Warren Weckesser
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Pierre Haessig
>>> wrote:
Le 16/02/2012 16:20, josef.p...@gmail.com a écrit :
>
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> 16.02.2012 14:54, josef.p...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> [clip]
>> If I interpret you correctly, this should be a svd ticket, or an svd
>> ticket as "duplicate" ?
>
> I think it should be a multivariate normal ticket.
>
> "Fixing" SVD is in my op
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> If non-contributing users came along on the Cython list demanding that
> we set up a system to select non-developers along on a board that would
> have discussions in order to veto pull requests, I don't know whether
> we'd ignore it
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:30 AM, wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Warren Weckesser
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Pierre Haessig
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Le 16/02/2012 16:20, josef.p...@gmail.com a écrit :
>>>
I don't see any way to fix multivariate_normal for this
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Warren Weckesser
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Pierre Haessig
> wrote:
>>
>> Le 16/02/2012 16:20, josef.p...@gmail.com a écrit :
>>
>>> I don't see any way to fix multivariate_normal for this case, except
>>> for dropping svd or for random pertur
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 16:12, Pierre Haessig wrote:
> Le 16/02/2012 16:20, josef.p...@gmail.com a écrit :
>
>> I don't see any way to fix multivariate_normal for this case, except
>> for dropping svd or for random perturbing a covariance matrix with
>> multiplicity of singular values.
>
> Hi,
> I
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Pierre Haessig
wrote:
> Le 16/02/2012 16:20, josef.p...@gmail.com a écrit :
>
> I don't see any way to fix multivariate_normal for this case, except
>> for dropping svd or for random perturbing a covariance matrix with
>> multiplicity of singular values.
>>
> Hi,
Le 16/02/2012 16:20, josef.p...@gmail.com a écrit :
I don't see any way to fix multivariate_normal for this case, except
for dropping svd or for random perturbing a covariance matrix with
multiplicity of singular values.
Hi,
I just made a quick search in what R guys are doing. It happens there
On 02/16/2012 08:06 AM, Scott Sinclair wrote:
> On 16 February 2012 15:08, Thomas Kluyver wrote:
>> It strikes me that the effort everyone's put into this thread could
>> have by now designed some way to resolve disputes. ;-)
> This is not intended to downplay the concerns raised in this thread,
>
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> 16.02.2012 14:54, josef.p...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> [clip]
>> If I interpret you correctly, this should be a svd ticket, or an svd
>> ticket as "duplicate" ?
>
> I think it should be a multivariate normal ticket.
>
> "Fixing" SVD is in my op
On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:08 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> The question is more about what can possibly be done about it. To really
>> shift power, my hunch is that the only practical way would be to, like
>> Mark said, make sure there are very active non-Continuum-employed
>> developers. But perhaps I
On 2/16/12 8:06 AM, Scott Sinclair wrote:
> On 16 February 2012 15:08, Thomas Kluyver wrote:
>> It strikes me that the effort everyone's put into this thread could
>> have by now designed some way to resolve disputes. ;-)
>
> This is not intended to downplay the concerns raised in this thread,
> b
16.02.2012 14:54, josef.p...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
[clip]
> If I interpret you correctly, this should be a svd ticket, or an svd
> ticket as "duplicate" ?
I think it should be a multivariate normal ticket.
"Fixing" SVD is in my opinion not sensible: its only guarantee is that A
= U S V^H down to n
On 16 February 2012 15:08, Thomas Kluyver wrote:
> It strikes me that the effort everyone's put into this thread could
> have by now designed some way to resolve disputes. ;-)
This is not intended to downplay the concerns raised in this thread,
but I can't help myself.
I propose the following (t
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> 16.02.2012 14:14, josef.p...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> [clip]
>> We had other cases of several patterns in quasi-deterministic linalg
>> before, but as far as I remember only in the final digits of
>> precision, where it didn't matter much exce
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:14 AM, wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 16.02.2012 06:09, josef.p...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>> [clip]
>>> numpy linalg.svd doesn't produce always the same results
>>>
>>> running this gives two different answers,
>>> using scipy
16.02.2012 14:14, josef.p...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
[clip]
> We had other cases of several patterns in quasi-deterministic linalg
> before, but as far as I remember only in the final digits of
> precision, where it didn't matter much except for reducing test
> precision in my cases.
>
> In the rando
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 16.02.2012 06:09, josef.p...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> [clip]
>> numpy linalg.svd doesn't produce always the same results
>>
>> running this gives two different answers,
>> using scipy.linalg.svd I always get the same answer, which is o
If I can chime in as a newcomer on this list:
I don't think a conflict of interest is at all likely, but I can see
the point of those saying that it's worth thinking about this while
everything is going well. If any tension does arise, it will be all
but impossible to decide on a fair governance s
On 2/16/12 6:23 AM, Francesc Alted wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>> But in the very end, when agreement can't be reached by other
>>> means, the developers are the one making the calls. (This is
>>> simply a consequen
On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>> But in the very end, when agreement can't
>> be reached by other means, the developers are the one making the calls.
>> (This is simply a consequence that they are the only ones who can
>> credibl
On Feb 15, 2012, at 6:18 PM, Joe Harrington wrote:
>
>
> Of course, balancing all of this (and our security blanket) is the
> possibility of someone splitting the code if they don't like how
> Continuum runs things. Perry, you've done that yourself to this
> code's
> predecessor, so you know th
On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> But in the very end, when agreement can't
> be reached by other means, the developers are the one making the calls.
> (This is simply a consequence that they are the only ones who can
> credibly threaten to fork the project.)
Interesting point. I
>
> An example I really like is LibreOffice's "get involved" page.
>
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/
>
> Producing something similar for NumPy will take some work, but I believe it's
> needed.
Speaking as someone who has contributed to numpy in a microscopic fashion, I
agree comple
Hi,
16.02.2012 06:09, josef.p...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
[clip]
> numpy linalg.svd doesn't produce always the same results
>
> running this gives two different answers,
> using scipy.linalg.svd I always get the same answer, which is one of
> the numpy answers
> (numpy random.multivariate_normal is c
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> On Feb 14, 2012, at 3:32 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>
>> Hi Travis,
>>
>> It is great that some resources can be spent to have people paid to
>> work on NumPy. Thank you for making that happen.
>>
>> I am slightly confused about roadmaps
84 matches
Mail list logo
